Re: SUO: On Clay and Vase
Dear Matthew,
Yes, I agree.
>> The main thing that I object to in Nicola's position is his
>> interpretation of identity and his claim that the statue
>> and the clay are two different things. That is not something
>> that either scientists or the proverbial T. C. Mits would say.
>
>Well actually in the usual case the piece of clay and the vase are two
>different objects under a 4D view. This is because normally, the vase is
>made from a single piece of clay. Thus the spatio-temporal extent of the
>piece of clay is different from the spatio-temporal extent of the vase
>(except when both come into existance and cease to exist at the same time).
>So normally the vase is a sub-state of the piece of clay. Whilst the piece
>of clay is also the vase the two are of course co-incident.
In 4D terminology, the space-time region of the clay includes
the space-time region of the vase as a subpart.
In 3D terminology, two different ways of characterizing the
something may determine the "same thing" at one instant of time,
but not at earlier or later times.
Examples like this illustrate my claim that the Whitehead's
process ontology is can support either a 3D or a 4D way of
talking.
One of my typical examples is the Great Red Spot on Jupiter,
which may be considered as a continuant (a process characterized
by a stable description) for over 300 years. But since it is
a vortex in the Jovian atmosphere, the actual matter that is
present in it is constantly being replaced by other matter.
A similar statement can be made about every plant and animal
on earth.
John Sowa